Labour attacks Osborne over "£2bn tax cut" for the banks

The party releases new figures showing that the banks have paid £1.9bn less in tax than David Cameron promised after cuts to corporation tax.

Parliament officially returns from its Easter recess today and Labour's number crunchers are already causing mischief for George Osborne. The party has accused the Chancellor of handing banks a £2bn tax cut after releasing new figures showing that the coalition's bank levy has raised significantly less than expected in the last two years. 

David Cameron pledged that the levy would raise £2.5bn a year and offset the gains to banks from the cuts in corporation tax. But figures from the OBR show that the levy raised just £1.6bn in 2012-13, while banks received a corporation tax cut of £200m, leaving the Treasury with a net gain of £1.4bn - £1.1bn less than promised. The previous year (2011-12), the levy raised £1.8bn, while the banks gained £100m from the corporation tax cut, a net gain of £1.7bn, or £800m less than promised. In total, then, the banks have paid £3.1bn in tax, £1.9bn less than pledged by Cameron (see table below).

 

2010-11

2011-12

2012-13

Labour bank bonus tax (£bn)

3.5

n/a

n/a

Tory-led Government bank levy (£bn)

n/a

1.8

1.6

Corporation Tax rate (%)

28

26

24

Corporation tax cut for banks from 2010-11 level (£bn)

n/a

0.1

0.2

Net amount raised from banks (£bn)

3.5

1.7

1.4

Amount raised compared to £2.5bn promised by govt (£bn)

n/a

-0.8

-1.1

Chris Leslie, the shadow financial secretary to the Treasury, plans to raise the figures when the Commons debates the second reading of the Finance Bill later today. He said: 

On top of last week’s tax cut for millionaires, this is effectively a tax cut of nearly £2 billion for the banks at a time when millions of working people are being forced to pay the price for this government’s economic failure.

Whether it’s on tax or watering down reforms to separate retail and investment banks, David Cameron and George Osborne have repeatedly failed to stand up to the vested interests of the banks.  

Labour is still urging the coalition to repeat Alistair Darling's bank bonus tax, which raised £3.5bn in 2010-11, in order to fund a jobs guarantee for every young person unemployed for more than a year (a measure the party is particularly keen to highlight as the benefit cap and other welfare reforms take effect). 

The Treasury has responded by stating that the "fragility of global financial markets" means it is unsurprising that the levy has raised less than by expected and by promising to review it this year "to ensure it is operating efficiently". 

As for the bank bonus tax, we can expect Osborne to point out that Darling himself described it as a "one-off" on the grounds that "the very people you are after here are very good at getting out of these things and will find all sorts of imaginative ways of avoiding it in the future". To most voters, however, that will sound like an argument for tackling avoidance, not for cutting taxes. And the banks' toxic reputation, combined with the image of a government devoted to the rich, means this remains fertile political territory for Labour. 

In the last two years, the banks have paid £3.1bn in tax, £1.9bn less than the government promised. Photograph: Getty Images.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Getty
Show Hide image

Donald Trump ushers in a new era of kakistocracy: government by the worst people

Trump will lead the whitest, most male cabinet in memory – a bizarre melange of the unqualified and the unhinged.

“What fills me with doubt and dismay is the degradation of the moral tone,” wrote the American poet James Russell Lowell in 1876, in a letter to his fellow poet Joel Benton. “Is it or is it not a result of democracy? Is ours a ‘government of the people by the people for the people’, or a kakistocracy rather, for the benefit of knaves at the cost of fools?”

Is there a better, more apt description of the incoming Trump administration than “kakistocracy”, which translates from the Greek literally as government by the worst people? The new US president, as Barack Obama remarked on the campaign trail, is “uniquely unqualified” to be commander-in-chief. There is no historical analogy for a President Trump. He combines in a single person some of the worst qualities of some of the worst US presidents: the Donald makes Nixon look honest, Clinton look chaste, Bush look smart.

Trump began his tenure as president-elect in November by agreeing to pay out $25m to settle fraud claims brought against the now defunct Trump University by dozens of former students; he began the new year being deposed as part of his lawsuit against a celebrity chef. On 10 January, the Federal Election Commission sent the Trump campaign a 250-page letter outlining a series of potentially illegal campaign contributions. A day later, the head of the non-partisan US Office of Government Ethics slammed Trump’s plan to step back from running his businesses as “meaningless from a conflict-of-interest perspective”.

It cannot be repeated often enough: none of this is normal. There is no precedent for such behaviour, and while kakistocracy may be a term unfamiliar to most of us, this is what it looks like. Forget 1876: be prepared for four years of epic misgovernance and brazen corruption. Despite claiming in his convention speech, “I alone can fix it,” the former reality TV star won’t be governing on his own. He will be in charge of the richest, whitest, most male cabinet in living memory; a bizarre melange of the unqualified and the unhinged.

There has been much discussion about the lack of experience of many of Trump’s appointees (think of the incoming secretary of state, Rex Tillerson, who has no background in diplomacy or foreign affairs) and their alleged bigotry (the Alabama senator Jeff Sessions, denied a role as a federal judge in the 1980s following claims of racial discrimination, is on course to be confirmed as attorney general). Yet what should equally worry the average American is that Trump has picked people who, in the words of the historian Meg Jacobs, “are downright hostile to the mission of the agency they are appointed to run”. With their new Republican president’s blessing, they want to roll back support for the poorest, most vulnerable members of society and don’t give a damn how much damage they do in the process.

Take Scott Pruitt, the Oklahoma attorney general selected to head the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Pruitt describes himself on his LinkedIn page as “a leading advocate against the EPA’s activist agenda” and has claimed that the debate over climate change is “far from settled”.

The former neurosurgeon Ben Carson is Trump’s pick for housing and urban development, a department with a $49bn budget that helps low-income families own homes and pay the rent. Carson has no background in housing policy, is an anti-welfare ideologue and ruled himself out of a cabinet job shortly after the election. “Dr Carson feels he has no government experience,” his spokesman said at the time. “He’s never run a federal agency. The last thing he would want to do was take a position that could cripple the presidency.”

The fast-food mogul Andrew Puzder, who was tapped to run the department of labour, doesn’t like . . . well . . . labour. He prefers robots, telling Business Insider in March 2016: “They’re always polite . . . They never take a vacation, they never show up late, there’s never a slip-and-fall, or an age, sex or race discrimination case.”

The billionaire Republican donor Betsy DeVos, nominated to run the department of education, did not attend state school and neither did any of her four children. She has never been a teacher, has no background in education and is a champion of school vouchers and privatisation. To quote the education historian Diane Ravitch: “If confirmed, DeVos will be the first education secretary who is actively hostile to public education.”

The former Texas governor Rick Perry, nominated for the role of energy secretary by Trump, promised to abolish the department that he has been asked to run while trying to secure his party’s presidential nomination in 2011. Compare and contrast Perry, who has an undergraduate degree in animal science but failed a chemistry course in college, with his two predecessors under President Obama: Dr Ernest Moniz, the former head of MIT’s physics department, and Dr Steven Chu, a Nobel Prize-winning physicist from Berkeley. In many ways, Perry, who spent the latter half of 2016 as a contestant on Dancing with the Stars, is the ultimate kakistocratic appointment.

“Do Trump’s cabinet picks want to run the government – or dismantle it?” asked a headline in the Chicago Tribune in December. That’s one rather polite way of putting it. Another would be to note, as the Online Etymology Dictionary does, that kakistocracy comes from kakistos, the Greek word for “worst”, which is a superlative of kakos, or “bad”, which “is related to the general Indo-European word for ‘defecate’”.

Mehdi Hasan has rejoined the New Statesman as a contributing editor and will write a fortnightly column on US politics

Mehdi Hasan is a contributing writer for the New Statesman and the co-author of Ed: The Milibands and the Making of a Labour Leader. He was the New Statesman's senior editor (politics) from 2009-12.

This article first appeared in the 19 January 2016 issue of the New Statesman, The Trump era